State v. Belcher
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentButtler, J.
Because the pack is defendant’s “effect” within the meaning of Article I, section 9, it is not necessary for him to establish any expectation of privacy, subjective or objective, in it. The constitution guarantees his privacy interest and, unless defendant had abandoned the pack, the officer had no authority to inspect its contents without a warrant, because no exception to the warrant requirement existed and none is claimed.
The majority concedes that there was no common law abandonment. 89 Or App at 404. However, it says that, for constitutional purposes, the standard is less rigid,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. CaraherOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. TannerOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. AtkinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.